According to a study by IHS, a global consulting group, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would have “no material impact” on greenhouse gas emissions or on the overall American carbon footprint. The study goes on to suggest that if the pipeline was not approved, the absence of oilsands crude in the Gulf of Mexico would be made up by an increase in heavy crude imported from Venezuela, which has a similar footprint to oilsands crude.
This study is important for a few reasons, not least of which because it shoots down the last major objection critics of the pipeline have raised. Pipeline and piping experts have consistently maintained that the integrity of the lines was nothing to worry about (i.e. similar levels of failure rates to regular pipelines and could be designed for, if required). Carbon experts – as previously blogged about – have posited that the impact of burning crude from conventional wells versus oilsands was negligible. The last argument was one about the total energy cycle and whether oilsands had a particularly negative one. This study – as many rational thinkers expected – throws that out of the window.
Another important point made by the study is the fact that oilsands crude production would not slow down or grow at a slower pace if Keystone XL was denied. Already, the Northern Gateway pipeline which will send crude from the sands to the Pacific coast is being built. There are also talks about a trans-Canada pipeline to the Atlantic coast, linking up with refineries along the way to sweeten and lighten the crude. In fact, one could argue that pursuing these two alternative paths would be more beneficial for the Canadian economy and rid it of dependence on US legislation. It can also be argued that Canada has a much stronger environmental record than the US, so doing this will not lead to an absence of proper checks and balances.
The position of Clean Efficiency – through this blog – has always been that viable energy options need to be looked at in order to keep global development moving faster. Developing countries in particular, NEED cheap energy if they are to accelerate their growth. Until renewables are in a position to completely disrupt the existing market (i.e. competitive on an industrial scale), much of the gap will need to be made up by existing energy sources with proven extractive methods. While the oilsands are controversial, are they more of an ethical dilenma than provoking wars in the Middle East to control access to their ‘cheap oil’? Or uprooting entire villages in order to build hydroelectric dams? Extreme examples, yes, but it does beg the question. Clean Efficiency is about maximizing energy sources and minimizing their environmental and economic impacts. Unlike the coal industry, the oilsands has actually taken giant strides to accomplish this, as the work of Suncor in tailings and SAGD technology and Cenovus in extraction technology suggests.
Whether arguments like this sway US policymakers – and in particular, the Obama administration – remains to be seen. Whether the study changes the minds of environmental activists, who it seems will only be appeased by a total shutdown of oilsands activities, is doubtful. What is clear is that the oilsands will continue to be tapped, and rather than shun them, we should make any infrastructre associated with them as ‘clean and efficient’ as possible, including Keystone XL.
If all else fails, there’s always the Northern Gateway pipeline.